Montana is now the least obese state in the U.S., with 19.6 percent of residents qualifying as obese in 2013, according to a new report from Gallup-Healthways researchers. Previously, Colorado was the least obese obese state -- but in 2013, it fell to the No. 2 spot, with an obesity rate of 20.4 percent.

A bug in the Windows operating system that can be used by an attacker for "drive-by attacks" to run code remotely and take over the user's machine has been discovered by IBM researchers. The bug has existed for 19 years and has moved from one version of Windows to the next.

Albert Einstein was not a poor student as some reports state. He was conversant in college physics before he was 11 years old, was a ''brilliant'' violin player, and received high marks in Latin and Greek. Before age 15 he had already mastered calculus.

I suspect that you posted that just to poke a stick in the hornet's nest. Hoowever, because I have a few minutes to spare...

The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.

It's because Islam is, at it's core, a religion that promotes violence and intolerance. Note that the debate concerns appearances rather than realities.

The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary understanding of their religion is infected with justifications for violence, requiring the government and its official clerics to correct the teaching of Islam.

While the old testament is a book, likewise filled with intolerance and violence, Christianity, for the most part, has abandoned most of the calls for death to transgressors. I say, "mostly", because there are still some nut-jobs out there who use the old (and new) testaments to justify discrimination and intolerance (see many US stories for examples of this), and even violence (bombing of abortion clinics, assassination of abortion doctors and calls for the execution of gays - yes - in America). If you examine the record you'll see very few examples of Jewish, Buddhist or Christian suicide bombers.

The above claim implies that the violent parts of Islam were added later (infected). This is not the case. The Koran is considered to be the sacred writings of the prophet. Any infection would make the Koran a non-sacred text.

Others, though, insist that the sources of the violence are alienation and resentment, not theology.

Wrong. There are numerous places in the Koran that specifically call for death to infidels. These examples are not ambiguous. They cannot be explained away as errors in interpretation.

“Some people who feel crushed or ignored will go toward extremism, and they use religion because that is what they have at hand,” said Said Ferjani.

Someone once said that for good people to do bad things requires religion. There are cases where a violent response to injustice is understandable. If you live in Afghanistan you may know or more than one innocent person who was killed by one of the many American drone strikes. Being offended by a cartoon (and for the record, I was also found many of the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo to be in extremely bad taste) is not grounds for assassination. One could get the impression that the cartoons were created solely to offend. Jesus & Mo, on the other hand, exposes the hypocrisy of religion. Would a death sentence be appropriate for depicting Mohammed in this case? Can you imagine the cartoonist getting similar death threats from Christians for depicting Jesus?

Many Muslims do believe that cartoons of Mohammed are offensive, but the reasons for that belief are widely misunderstood.

It doesn't matter what their reasons are. They have the right to be offended. They have the right to protest. They do not have the right to kill.

Mohammed is a venerated figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him — such as the 2012 film "Innocence of Muslims" — as an attack on their Muslim identity.

If your identity relies on how you are perceived by others then your identity is not very strong.

Mogahed compared the cartoons to the issue of flag-burning in the United States, noting that a majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning for similar reasons: the flag is an important symbol of a national identity, and many Americans see flag-burning as an attack on that identity, or even on the country itself. That's not extremism or backwardness; it's about protecting something you cherish.

And (at least for now) flag burning is still seen as a constitutional right of free speech. Unfortunately, America is quickly going down the rabbit hole as people are more frequently publicly attacked as traitors for having different opinions. Or for just being Democrats (but that's another discussion).

The leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group says Islamic extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than those who published satirical cartoons mocking the religion.

And yet we don't hear any Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of the assassins.

In an op-ed in USA Today on Thursday, Choudary seemed to try to justify the attacks. “[T]he potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike,” Choudary said. “The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State,” he continued.

If the people living in an Islamic country are OK with Sharia law then that is their choice. However, the last time I checked, French citizens do not live under Sharia law.

Wrong. There are numerous places in the Koran that specifically call for death to infidels. These examples are not ambiguous. They cannot be explained away as errors in interpretation.

In a simple search, I found this about the bible: In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants, 2) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war, 3) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently, 4) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law, 5) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

It's because Islam is, at it's core, a religion that promotes violence and intolerance. Note that the debate concerns appearances rather than realities.

We can't be quick and shoot at any religion and say they promote violence. People take the words out of context. People have to take the time to understand another persons religion before they jump to conclusions. Take context into consideration, don't let a minority group influence your perception of a group as a whole. The taliban, isis, and al qaeda don't represent Islam because they don't act in ways that Muslims should act in. Back then, times were different, conquest was used to form those who would not ever be worshippers/those who are invaders to convert. But before doing that, peaceful methods would be used. Here are some of the core beliefs of islam: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/10256/

And yet we don't hear any Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of the assassins.

If your identity relies on how you are perceived by others then your identity is not very strong.

Not sure how this ties to islam... the average muslim would wear simple clothing and avoid dragging attention.

It doesn't matter what their reasons are. They have the right to be offended. They have the right to protest. They do not have the right to kill.

True. I believe that those people had no right to kill anyone. Should the cartoonist be punished? Yes, but with a lawsuit or maybe a complaint... with violence no. I personally found the artwork made them to be offensive. It is just not right.

If you live in Afghanistan you may know or more than one innocent person who was killed by one of the many American drone strikes.

I am an Afghan... and I don't find that valid.

@Jim, we can't judge religions out of their context. Religions are not promoting to kill people. Islam at it's core is about peace, not killing. It is wrong to judge a faith because of the actions of a few who use religion as a coverup. We have to be open minded and considerate about others. Even though you may not be a muslim, you should know that people can still be offended. Just think about how you would react if someone judges your faith based on the actions of a few people? I mean, people would bash the christian faith because of the KKK.

And yet in your second paragraph you cite many examples of violence in both the old and new testaments, so your first statement is false.

We can't be quick and shoot at any religion and say they promote violence. People take the words out of context.

Please peruse the link I provided in my previous post. I'm not going to go to the trouble of detailing everything here again. There are numerous examples of the Koran inciting violence in that thread.

People take the words out of context.

Yeah. That's an often heard excuse. Passages such as

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. 2:191-2

Are not open to misinterpretation or context. They are pretty straightforward.

don't let a minority group influence your perception of a group as a whole

I never said that all Muslims are evil. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. What I said was that the Koran at its core promotes violence. I also said that the Koran is not alone in doing this.

Back then, times were different, conquest was used to form those who would not ever be worshippers/those who are invaders to convert.

The problem is that because religious texts are considered to be infallible and eternal there will always be a group of believers who will use the texts to justify whatever evil acts they commit.

Actually... they did [call for the deaths of the assassins]

No. They didn't. All that article states is that they condemned the actions of the terrorists. That's not the same thing. The article further states...

Many Arabic Twitter users, however, attacked the terrorists, one pointing out that Charlie Hebdo had made fun of Jews, Christians and Buddhists without its journalists being targeted and murdered.

Don't you wonder why that is?

Not sure how this ties to islam... the average muslim would wear simple clothing and avoid dragging attention.

Please reread who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him -- such as the 2012 film "Innocence of Muslims" -- as an attack on their Muslim identity. It is a pretty ineffective attack unless their identity as Muslims depends on the opinions of others. All the centuries of horrific atrocities committed against the Jews haven't appeared to have had an impact on their self identity. And yet, a few cartoons are considered an "attack" worthy of a lethal response on the part of some Muslims? And I'm not just talking a few whacked out extremists. Didn't the Ayatollah himself declare a fatwa against Salman Rushdie and a Danish cartoonist? That seems pretty official. That's basically a call on all Muslims to carry out assassinations in the name of their faith.

Should the cartoonist be punished?

He should be punished by not having anyone pay to read some of the crap that is published. Unfortunately the publication seems to have a market. As I mentioned before, I found most of what I saw highly objectionable but, free speech being what it is...

I am an Afghan... and I don't find that valid.

I guess the reports I have read about collateral damage are all mistaken. Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to bomb your wedding party. I seem to recall one report that claims that od 47 men targeted, 1147 people were actually killed. That's a lot of collateral damage.

Religions are not promoting to kill people.

There are numerous examples (some of which you have provided) that show that your statement is blatantly false.

It is wrong to judge a faith because of the actions of a few who use religion as a coverup.

I'm not doing that. I'm pointing out the passages that make those actions justifiable according to those who are just going "by the book". I judge a faith based on what it teaches.

Just think about how you would react if someone judges your faith based on the actions of a few people?

Not possible in my case. I don't live by faith. I express my opinions and I back up those opinions by facts. When someone proves that the facts upon which I base those opinions are wrong, or that my reasoning is faulty, I reconsider those opinions and revise them to fit the facts. Show me a hardcore religious person who is capable of doing the same when it comes to their religious beliefs.

And yet in your second paragraph you cite many examples of violence in both the old and new testaments, so your first statement is false.

Well, all i am trying to point out is that we shouldn't be taking things out of context. And you said that islam is violent, so i pointed out examples from the bible. Just because talks about violence, it doesn't mean the people are to be violent.

That's basically a call on all Muslims to carry out assassinations in the name of their faith.

So, i am guessing that makes me and over a billion other muslims official assassins... and we kill people if they hurt our feelings...

All i can say is that we should not be taking things out of context. If islam is considered the religion of peace, there is a reason for that... and i should really stop typing all these up on my phone...

Well, all i am trying to point out is that we shouldn't be taking things out of context.

Can you please explain what context could be used to explain how Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. 2:191-2 is not actually a call to violence? If the Koran is God's infallible and eternal word then it must mean exactly what it says. It is not a parable or an allegory. It is a simple statement.

And you said that islam is violent, so i pointed out examples from the bible.

So you are saying that because the bible is violent it proves that the Koran is not? If, on the other hand, you are saying the bible is as violent as the Koran, then we agree.

Just because talks about violence, it doesn't mean the people are to be violent.

It doesn't mean that the people will be violent. That wasn't my point. My point is that it is used to justify violence. A true believer can claim "see, my holy book says that this is what I am supposed to do".

So, i am guessing that makes me and over a billion other muslims official assassins.

Potentially, yes. If the Pope publicly and officially called for the assassination of all cartoonists who published works offensive to Catholics, what do you suppose would be the reaction? Would this be met with widespread condemnation or would it be considered reasonable? We are all of us potential assassins, murderers, etc. The difference between a Muslim (in this case) and an atheist is that a Muslim has the official stamp of approval from religious leaders under Sharia law to act. Fortunately, as I repeatedly state, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people who can justifiably take offense and respond appropriately as is shown here.

and we kill people if they hurt our feelings...

That does seem to be the case.

If islam is considered the religion of peace, there is a reason for that.

So you are saying that because the bible is violent it proves that the Koran is not? If, on the other hand, you are saying the bible is as violent as the Koran, then we agree.

I was trying to think like you...

That does seem to be the case.

Islam does not have any responsibility over the well known terrorists, its the people who are using a religion to cover up their wrong doing.

The difference between a Muslim (in this case) and an atheist is that a Muslim has the official stamp of approval from religious leaders under Sharia law to act.

I was gonna assume that you will say that the aethiest believes in natural selection...

Can you please explain what context could be used to explain how Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. 2:191-2 is not actually a call to violence? If the Koran is God's infallible and eternal word then it must mean exactly what it says. It is not a parable or an allegory. It is a simple statement.

The disbelievers were the attackers at the time... Back then, the early people of islam were often harmed in some way. Conquest and warefare was used to protect themselves against those who wanted to kill them. If a person was about to kill you because you were a certain religion you don't like, you were supposed to defend yourself. You have to consider history...

The Quran still exists today just as it did at the time of the prophet Muhammad. You see, he never did learn how to read or write, so he memorized the entire Quran from the angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) and then he passed on this recitation (Quran) to his companions and they in turn passed it on to the next generation and this practice continues even today, reciting by memory and then passing it on to the next generations. And by the way, it is exactly the same from anywhere it is recited in the world.

We know the Quran orders believers to fight in combat against those who are the oppressors, aggressors and terrorists and those who are assaulting and killing the innocent men, women and children. But it gives out clear orders - NOT TO Fight against those who are not fighting against you...

BERLIN (AP) — Police in Germany are looking for a missing pigeon, and any finder could be in line for a 10,000-euro ($12,250) reward.

Duesseldorf police said Tuesday that the 6-year-old male homing pigeon, named AS 969, was stolen at some point on Saturday night from a locked aviary in the city's suburbs.

They say the light gray bird is valued by its owner at 150,000 euros ($184,000) and police suspect the thief or thieves were "connoisseurs" as it was the most valuable in an aviary full of other homing pigeons.

That's not answering the question. That's avoiding answering the question.

its the people who are using a religion to cover up their wrong doing.

That's kind of my point (again). And the term is "justify", not "cover up".

I was gonna assume that you will say that the aethiest believes in natural selection...

I don't see what that has to do with this topic. Whether or not an atheist believes in natural selection has nothing to do with whether or not religious texts can be used to justify violence.

you were supposed to defend yourself. You have to consider history.

Of course. But the edict, Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. is still being used to justify killing. Unfortunately, defend is open to interpretation. If someone published an offensive cartoon and that is seen as an "attack" on ones beliefs, or if a believer converts to another religion (talk about out of the frying pan) then that can also be interpreted as an "attack" and thus a lethal response can be justified. There are still many places under Sharia law where apostasy is punishable by death. Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger will receive 1000 lashes - 50 every other week, for the crime of renouncing Islam. This is an official punishment from Islamic officials who believe they are following the tenets of their religion.

We know the Quran orders believers to fight in combat against those who are the oppressors...

Please define "oppressors". This is another term that can be widely interpreted to justify all sorts of atrocities. Is someone who speaks ill of Islam an oppressor? Does that make me an oppressor for having an opinion that you do not like?

But it gives out clear orders - NOT TO Fight against those who are not fighting against you...

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. 2:191-2

Salman Rushdie and Kurt Westergaard were not fighting against Islam and yet they had fatwas declared against them by Islamic officials following Sharia law.

We don't have people fighting us, therefore there is no reason to kill. We do have people insulting us, but that doesn't mean we kill them.

Um, Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergard, Charlie Hebdoe, 9/11...

I expect this conversation is going to go the way of the same conversation we had a couple of years back. You are going to continue to avoid responding directly to my questions and you will continue to deny the facts (even the ones that you are stating).

@jim, will i am not avoiding the question... its just pretty hard to make you change sides and consider what really is happening. I am no expert in islam, I just know a good amount. so yes, I can make mistakes though i believe my points are valid. If I were you, I would have a debate with an actual muslim scholar. Send one an email with what you wrote in the above and see what he will say.

There are also book by well known writes that have wrote about this controversy within their book. One I know of is called "Misquoting Muhammad" By Dr. Johnathan Brown.